On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 1:50 PM Feifei Wang <feifei.wa...@arm.com> wrote: > > Instead of polling for bufptr64 to be updated, use > wait event for this case. > > Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <feifei.wa...@arm.com> > Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>
With the change in the subject as distributor: ... Probably can be fixed in merge time. Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com> > --- > lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c | 10 ++++------ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c > b/lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c > index f4725b1d0b..d52b24a453 100644 > --- a/lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c > +++ b/lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c > @@ -33,9 +33,8 @@ rte_distributor_request_pkt_single(struct > rte_distributor_single *d, > union rte_distributor_buffer_single *buf = &d->bufs[worker_id]; > int64_t req = (((int64_t)(uintptr_t)oldpkt) << RTE_DISTRIB_FLAG_BITS) > | RTE_DISTRIB_GET_BUF; > - while (unlikely(__atomic_load_n(&buf->bufptr64, __ATOMIC_RELAXED) > - & RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK)) > - rte_pause(); > + rte_wait_event(&buf->bufptr64, RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK, > + !=, 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); > > /* Sync with distributor on GET_BUF flag. */ > __atomic_store_n(&(buf->bufptr64), req, __ATOMIC_RELEASE); > @@ -74,9 +73,8 @@ rte_distributor_return_pkt_single(struct > rte_distributor_single *d, > union rte_distributor_buffer_single *buf = &d->bufs[worker_id]; > uint64_t req = (((int64_t)(uintptr_t)oldpkt) << RTE_DISTRIB_FLAG_BITS) > | RTE_DISTRIB_RETURN_BUF; > - while (unlikely(__atomic_load_n(&buf->bufptr64, __ATOMIC_RELAXED) > - & RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK)) > - rte_pause(); > + rte_wait_event(&buf->bufptr64, RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK, > + !=, 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); > > /* Sync with distributor on RETURN_BUF flag. */ > __atomic_store_n(&(buf->bufptr64), req, __ATOMIC_RELEASE); > -- > 2.25.1 >
